When the item breaks, in both cases you have lost the item and suffered an equivalent amount of fail.
But if you haven't yet recouped your investment, you've effectively lost even more.
Your line of thought would lead one to conclude that something is worth less if you got it for free - this is a huge mistake.
I disagree. I say that getting an item for free increases your profit with that item. Hence, it's worth a larger positive gain. If two different investments have the same net yield (positive or negative), but one has a drastically lower opportunity cost, the one with the lower opportunity cost is clearly the superior choice. If it's a gain, then your profit margin is incredibly high, as it's a very efficient investment. If it's a loss, then you've only lost a very small opportunity cost. If you make a larger investment but obtain the same result, you've reduced your profit and increased the severity of a loss.
EDIT: @gedavids: Now, if we really wanted to be accurate here, we'd need to know whether or not the investor in question is actually a person capable of making an investment. This could all be moot, because it's not like a dog can even make a $10 investment in the first place!
When the item breaks, in both cases you have lost the item and suffered an equivalent amount of fail.
But if you haven't yet recouped your investment, you've effectively lost even more.
In total, yes, but that loss happened when you paid for the item, not when it broke.
Your line of thought would lead one to conclude that something is worth less if you got it for free - this is a huge mistake.
I disagree. I say that getting an item for free increases your profit with that item. Hence, it's worth a larger positive gain.
Before you've made the purchase, it is obviously the better choice to get the item for free. However, after purchase, in either case you have the item, and it is now worth the same amount in either case.
If two different investments have the same net yield (positive or negative), but one has a drastically lower opportunity cost, the one with the lower opportunity cost is clearly the superior choice. If it's a gain, then your profit margin is incredibly high, as it's a very efficient investment. If it's a loss, then you've only lost a very small opportunity cost. If you make a larger investment but obtain the same result, you've reduced your profit and increased the severity of a loss.
Indeed, but these are considerations made before the investment has been made, not afterwards.
In total, yes, but that loss happened when you paid for the item, not when it broke.
Yes, the immediate loss occurs when you buy the item. If it breaks before you recoup that investment, you've suffered a net loss. If you recoup your investment and then it breaks, you break even. If you get more out of it then you paid for, and then it breaks, you profit. This is not hard. Once you've made an investment, you still need to factor in the initial cost of investing in order to determine profitability.
However, after purchase, in either case you have the item, and it is now worth the same amount in either case.
It has the same absolute worth, yes, but in the case of the lower investment, the item has a much higher effective worth. In other words, the amount of profit indicates the efficiency of the investment. The absolute value is irrelevant; what matters is the efficiency of the investment, and that determines the amount of win or loss.
Yes, the immediate loss occurs when you buy the item. If it breaks before you recoup that investment, you've suffered a net loss. If you recoup your investment and then it breaks, you break even. If you get more out of it then you paid for, and then it breaks, you profit. This is not hard. Once you've made an investment, you still need to factor in the initial cost of investing in order to determine profitability.
The point is that the concept of profitability of the investment is only relevant before you make the investment, not afterwards. After the fact, the amount of money initially spent on the investment is no longer relevant to any decision-making process, it's just a number in the accounting books. The only thing that matters afterwards is the estimated value of the investment, not how much you spent on it.
It has the same absolute worth, yes, but in the case of the lower investment, the item has a much higher effective worth.
Not at all. It's the money sitting in your pocket that you didn't spend on the item that has the greater worth, not the item.
Here's an example - you invest $10 million, but the investment starts to go downhill. You're offered $8 million for it, and you think "Fuck no! If I accept 8 million for my investment, that will be a $2 million loss!" Shortly afterwards, the company goes bankrupt and you now have $0 million. Why did this happen? Because you didn't accept that you had already lost $2 million.
Not at all. It's the money sitting in your pocket that you didn't spend on the item that has the greater worth, not the item.
Well, yeah, sure. Whatever investment we're making has a worth of X. The reason that we desire more efficient investments is that we're able to make more of them, and thus get the greatest overall return.
The point I'm making is that a more efficient investment is effectively worth more than a less efficient investment. The absolute value might be the same, but when there's a lower opportunity cost, you're freed up to make more investments. Hence, more efficient investments are outright better than less efficient ones.
Back to the original point, if the TA in question indeed translated Pokemon by himself, then he has made a very high initial investment (high opportunity cost), and it still failed (because he translated wrong). If he had invested minimal effort in the translation, he still would have failed, but he could have mitigated that fail with win in other sectors by investing the remaining opportunity that didn't go into the translation.
In other words, he fails much harder because he has a really low win efficiency (or a really fantastic fail efficiency).
The point I'm making is that a more efficient investment is effectively worth more than a less efficient investment. The absolute value might be the same, but when there's a lower opportunity cost, you're freed up to make more investments. Hence, more efficient investments are outright better than less efficient ones.
Of course.
fantastic fail efficiency
That is a great term.
As for the TA, yes, there were no less than four fails, and if we compound them we can consider there to be a significantly greater overall fail. The fails being:
Watching Pokemon in the first place.
Spending a lot of time translating it.
Failing to translate correctly.
Incorrectly naming the technique in a witty response.
It is important to note, however, that fails are compounded additively, not multiplicatively.
However, if we are going to compound associated fail, where do we stop? Should we also factor in the fail associated with the TA being born in the first place?
Besides, what if heplayedPokemon? It's not just a TV series.
If he played Pokemon, then he would fail a lot less overall. However, we are working on the hypothetical of a TA who got his/her Pokemon knowledge from personally translating the TV series from Japanese into English.
However, if we are going to compound associated fail, where do we stop? Should we also factor in the fail associated with the TA being born in the first place?
Well, that fail applies to the TA's mother, and not to the TA in question. If we were to look at the continuum of fail - the failtinuum, if I may - we can see that his mother is therefore responsible for all of his fail. Reducing this, we can conclude, without question, that the entire universe is composed entirely of fail because a TA at Georgia Tech cannot get the name of a goddamn Pokemon technique correct in his witty retort. Thanks, asshole.
What is wrong with you people? Especially you lackofcheese. You lot failed big time for not listing the biggest fail of the TA (and the student too). That is, the inferiority of their 'witty' exchange on the test paper. It is not at all clever in any shape of form when compared to the crazy level of 'lolreference' found in Unlimited Sketch Works, which is a classic on the internet and far superior to this. I say, the two of you discussing this makes you fail even more than the TA and student! Also, 2 seconds on Google: water cannon IS an attack, further proofing the greater fail on the part of lackofcheese and TheWhaleShark.
I'm amazed that nobody's noticed that that Blastoise is shooting water out of it's mouth, rather than using it's water cannons like it usually does.
The scan is too small and too crappy to say with 100% certainty, but it looks to me more like its snout it turned upward, with a distinctly closed mouth. There's just some physics bending going on with the water cannons on Blastoise, they are pointed downwards but shoot straight in a horizontal path.
On that note, if you hang up your toilet paper as following a in the following image, you fail, less the person has to fear coming into contact with the disgusting wall behind it.
Obscure fan discussion of an obscure (relative to Pokemon) visual novel series. The greatness in these witty exchanges between student and teacher is the chances of it happening, therefore the more obscure the references made, the more win it is. Also, Unlimited X Works is by default better than a simple pokemon reference.
You fail in your attempt to discredit my analysis of the TA's fail.
You can't expect one to skim and not miss a few things. And I was pointing out BOTH of you failed. Not just you, you ego. Also, who says it's Blastoise his attack? He has 2 water cannons on his shoulders, he uses one. The anime also tells Blastoise to use water cannon sometimes. The lack of specification which water attack he uses specifically matters not.
I got the Fate/Stay Night reference, I just wanted the images. Are there more of them?
If you got the "Shiki can kill servants" you already know where to get more Unlimited X Works.
If you got the "Shiki can kill servants" you already know where to get more Unlimited X Works.
I only picked up on the "Unlimited X Works," not "Shiki can kill servants."
"Shiki can kill servants" is a cross-over reference to Type-Moon's other visual novel/anime, Tsukihime. The main character's name is Shiki Tohno, and yes, he could probably kill servants. Going into much more detail would be spoilers.
[Y]es, he could probably kill servants. Going into much more detail would be spoilers.
No. Don't bring the shit here, though what spoilers? It's a dude who can kill you by cutting your life lines. If that's a spoiler more reason to not care about Type-Moon at all.
Comments
EDIT: @gedavids: Now, if we really wanted to be accurate here, we'd need to know whether or not the investor in question is actually a person capable of making an investment. This could all be moot, because it's not like a dog can even make a $10 investment in the first place!
Here's an example - you invest $10 million, but the investment starts to go downhill. You're offered $8 million for it, and you think "Fuck no! If I accept 8 million for my investment, that will be a $2 million loss!" Shortly afterwards, the company goes bankrupt and you now have $0 million. Why did this happen? Because you didn't accept that you had already lost $2 million.
The point I'm making is that a more efficient investment is effectively worth more than a less efficient investment. The absolute value might be the same, but when there's a lower opportunity cost, you're freed up to make more investments. Hence, more efficient investments are outright better than less efficient ones.
Back to the original point, if the TA in question indeed translated Pokemon by himself, then he has made a very high initial investment (high opportunity cost), and it still failed (because he translated wrong). If he had invested minimal effort in the translation, he still would have failed, but he could have mitigated that fail with win in other sectors by investing the remaining opportunity that didn't go into the translation.
In other words, he fails much harder because he has a really low win efficiency (or a really fantastic fail efficiency).
As for the TA, yes, there were no less than four fails, and if we compound them we can consider there to be a significantly greater overall fail. The fails being:
- Watching Pokemon in the first place.
- Spending a lot of time translating it.
- Failing to translate correctly.
- Incorrectly naming the technique in a witty response.
It is important to note, however, that fails are compounded additively, not multiplicatively.However, if we are going to compound associated fail, where do we stop? Should we also factor in the fail associated with the TA being born in the first place?
Besides, what if he played Pokemon? It's not just a TV series.
On that note, if you hang up your toilet paper as following a in the following image, you fail, less the person has to fear coming into contact with the disgusting wall behind it.
You fail in your attempt to discredit my analysis of the TA's fail.